This effectively means no new fossil fuel equipment within a few years

  • Aniki@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I think gas won’t be phased out; it will be gradually enriched with renewably produced hydrogen (from electrolysis) until the gas mix is 100% renewable.

    • Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      21 hours ago

      maybe but it’s a ridiculous thing to do, so let’s hope not.

      Might as well just electrify. It’s a massively inefficient way of making H, storage and transport of H is beyond tricky , H is a GHG so whatever fugitive emissions you have, which there’s plenty of with a molecule that small, are ubiquitous.

      That said, doing stupid things has never stopped humanity before, so who knows. Every H project in Australia has been shitballed, some are saying make Ammonia now instead but that’s ripe with problems as well but it is significantly easier to store and transport.

      • Hypx@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        It’s far easier to store and distribute hydrogen than electricity. Hydrogen is not a GHG either.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Doesn’t really work like that. You can’t put more than a bit of hydrogen into existing appliances or pipes without destroying them

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          Yes, with a tiny amount of hydrogen. Exceed 25% and appliances explode and pipes corrode in new ways causing leaks. It will ultimately be a lot cheaper to electrify everything than to switch to hydrogen

          The leakage of hydrogen in widespread use (eg: not just the chemicals Industry) means a set of reactions in the atmosphere which cause a bunch of warming as well.

          • Aniki@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            do you have sources on hydrogen pipelines not being possible? because they are actively being built in germany right now. i doubt that somebody builds a billion-dollar pipeline for nothing.

            • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              They’re very possible, but existing pipes used for natural gas aren’t suitable, and replacing them is more expensive than electrification.

              • Aniki@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 hours ago

                interesting. i remember reading that hydrogen transport through hydrogen pipes costs about half of what it costs to transport the same amount of power over the same distance through electric cables. iirc the figures are: 0.6 - 1 ct/kWh for cables, 0.3 ct/kWh for hydrogen (per 100 km or 1000 km, not sure anymore). could be that i’m mixing that up though and that the number is actually only for methane gas.

                • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 hours ago

                  We’re talking household distribution here, not long-distance transport. The economics are very different when you’re talking about having to open up walls and dig new holes in foundations to put in pipes.

                  HVDC probably comes in cheaper for long-distance transmission at this point.